Bank Charges - Bank of Scotland must prove fairness in Court

esmerellda

pmsl nice summary

hicskis

Hey esmerellda - did you see the case law i had found on my threads and what Durkin posted? I'm interested on your views - then i'll tell you what i'm thinking.....:D

natweststaffmember

Hicksis there may be cases by then that will already have been heard so let's keep the feet on the ground this time. Remember, we all expected the Supreme Court to rubber stamp the previous hearings. The case WOULD be appealed if they lost, I would assume.

esmerellda

The one suing the credit reference agency - yes but havent had chance to read properly yet - first glance certainly seems what we want ! I'm going to send you a very very cheeky pm.

hicskis wrote: »

Hey esmerellda - did you see the case law i had found on my threads and what Durkin posted? I'm interested on your views - then i'll tell you what i'm thinking.....:D

Vagabond_UK

GLC have explained their article further..

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html#post2781582

natweststaffmember

Vagabond_UK wrote: »

GLC have explained their article further..

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html#post2781582

I spotted that and I haven't changed my opinion. Consumer Credit Act, as far as I am aware would only go back to bank charges 2007 onwards and I think the next question is about how to take the argument further back than that point.
Let's not float in the air on the argument and keep a level head until such time as there is a settlement or until there is a definitive win with no appeal. Some of us have been here before and floated. The quick setting concrete is firmly in place so no floating allowed

ThunderBird_3

I think the next question is about how to take the argument further back than that

i tink hicskis has a point on that

hicskis

Don't worry - natweststaffmember - i feel most people have their heads clearly planted in the sand - but to answer your question:

"Consumer Credit Act, as far as I am aware would only go back to bank charges 2007 onwards and I think the next question is about how to take the argument further back than that point."

A. Unfairness (UTTCR 1999).

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

Don't worry - natweststaffmember - i feel most people have their heads clearly planted in the sand - but to answer your question:



A. Unfairness (UTTCR 1999).

UTCCR 5(1) (e) to me appears to suggest price which is excluded by 6.2(b).

One argument that is problematic is someone with the odd charge that does not take them over their overdraft. Does it create an imbalance contrary to good faith?
I think the banks' may have a fairly good case that it doesn't.

The main thing I am saying is please please please keep your feet firmly on the ground. It's nice to hear but let's wait until the case is not appealed and the bank pays out before we jump up and down and punch the air. It's a good start but no money has changed hands quite yet.

hicskis

If you've proven unfairness under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 then you could apply the UTTCR to that unfairness thereby taking it back to 1999.

By natweststaffmember:

"One argument that is problematic is someone with the odd charge that does not take them over their overdraft. Does it create an imbalance contrary to good faith? I think the banks' may have a fairly good case that it doesn't."

You're right.